What characteristics does someone need to possess in order to be regarded a human being? Are there any necessary and sufficient conditions, apart from those that can be discerned with the help of electron microscopes and other equipment, for humanness?
Just for the record, I don’t think there are. I haven’t been able to come up with even one.
I don’t think the matter of how we define 'human' has been given as much consideration as it should have. It’s a pity really, given that we're always throwing the word around in various forms. Human rights, for example. Or an act being ‘inhuman’. What does the latter mean?
Attempts at using psychological characteristics such as empathy to identify human beings fall flat on its face. Take psychopaths for instance. Research suggests that psychopaths lack, among other things, the ability to empathise- to gauge and understand emotions in another person or in themselves. Jon Ronson in his book- The Psychopath Test- explores the idea of psychopathy and is surprised at discovering that psychopathy as a trait is present in people who don't go on to commit heinous crimes or become serial killers. High ranking corporate executives may get high scores on a standardised instrument designed to assess and diagnose psychopathy. Yet we do not incarcerate such persons in prisons or asylums for the criminally insane. The fact is that in the business world it may be a highly prized quality to not be fazed by or affected by other people's emotions. As I write this, Devil Wears Prada is on in the background on television, and Meryl Streep comes to mind easily as an example of what I'm talking about. Context is everything, really.
Alternatively, any skill - such as communication or the use of complex tools- cannot be the defining feature. There are many who for medical reasons cannot perform these tasks. To suggest that they’re not human beings is preposterous. Wikipedia suggests that higher level thought processes such as abstract reasoning and rationality define a ‘person’. (Un)fortunately, I’ve come across many creatures belonging to the human species as defined by biology {‘Animalia’ kingdom, ‘Chordata’ phylum, ‘Mammalia’ class, ‘Primate’ order, ‘Hominidae’ family, ‘Hominini’ tribe and ‘Homo’ genus} who have not (at least in my presence) actually demonstrated the capacity for logic and reason.
Similarly, aptitude and intelligence tests often assess the capacity for abstract reasoning. While there are several diagnostic terms used to indicate a low-score on these dimensions, ‘inhuman’ is not one of them. So you see, the system, flimsy as it was to begin with, breaks down once again.
People who do horrible things to other people are often referred to by names of life forms we regard as lying at the lowest rungs of species classification- rats, fungi, parasites, cockroach and the like. The tendency to describe acts that we find vile as ‘inhuman’, or referring to people whose actions we find despicable with words that refer to species other than human beings, stems from a desire to dissociate ourselves from them- I am a human being and I am not like this person. Ergo, this person cannot be a human being. What this indicates is an effort towards creating homogeneity within the species. The obliteration of difference.
Obliteration of difference lies at the heart of all discriminatory attitudes - racism, homophobia, or Nazi eugenics. The problem is the assumption of a 'natural order of things' or how something ought to be. The moment one assumes a natural order, the unnatural is born. Abnormal, insane, inhuman are negations. Their existence depends on the existence of something that is not them. It doesn’t matter whether the assumed natural order in question is heterosexuality, patriarchy, or caring for fellow beings. What is the difference, really, between someone who thinks a pedophile is an animal and someone who deems the transvestite a beast? The line, if there is one, is very thin indeed.
With the obliteration of difference comes the obliteration of otherness. Psychoanalytic theory would regard this as the fundamental me/not me dilemma. Transition from a symbiotic relationship with the caregiver to an independent sense of self comes with a painful acknowledgement of caregiver as different from oneself. Freudians would regard this as the crux of the oedipal conflict. I'm not a Freudian, at least not completely, but I do buy the idea that to recognise the independent existence of a love-object with whom we would much rather be, and for a while were, fused is not always peachy.
Sorry about the brief psychoanalytic detour without prior notification, but it felt necessary.
The recognition of others as independent beings comes as a shock in infancy and childhood and is apparently not that easy to accept in adulthood either. Trace the course of human history, from the Pharoahs to the Nazis, to the uproar about drawings of Mohammad, or bikinis with images of Lakshmi and Saraswati and you'll agree.
Diversity of race, gender, sexuality, culture, or religion is generally more easily accepted than diversity of actions. The fact is that if you claim to acknowledge- and even appreciate- diversity, you really should accept all forms of it. You can't own the good bits without also owning the ugly. It's kind of a package deal.
Another causal factor that leads many of us to distinguish ourselves from those whose actions we find abominable is a refusal to accept that the human species is as much a rotting mass of depravity as it is a sea of spirituality, goodness and whatnot.
The problem with such a stance is that the species/title/diagnosis that is given to individuals whose actions we find abhorrent then becomes the cause or explanation for their behaviour. Consider the much debated insanity plea. That someone can get away with murder because they were diagnosed with schizophrenia seems preposterous to me. Insanity is an idea that is at best ambiguous and at worst, absurd. Schizophrenia is basically a diagnostic term that applies to a range of symptoms, none of which include the predisposition to commit murder. Consider the fact that illnesses traditionally used most often in the insanity pleas tend to be schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and there is no evidence to indicate that being diagnosed with either necessarily precludes an awareness of actions and/or intentions. My difficulty with the insanity plea is that it is almost impossible to establish with conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone’s actions were the direct result of a ‘mental illness’. Criminality and insanity are two separate issues serving separate purposes for society.
The treatment of people in mental asylums continues to be largely deplorable in several countries. Sending someone to a high security psychiatric ward instead of jail is not necessarily more merciful. If they are to be imprisoned, it might as well be in a prison. (For a more detailed discussion on similar themes, interested readers are advised to procure Thomas Szasz’s essays on Ideology and Insanity- highly recommended!) Incidentally, Anders Breivik’s lawyer believes that Breivik (the man responsible for the recent attacks in Oslo) is insane, though it is not clear whether he will plead insanity.
Ascribing ‘inhuman’ qualities to an act stands for the sort of determinism that obliterates free will. To determine that someone murdered under the influence of a psychotic or manic episode is akin to saying that the illness caused the crime, and if the illness is treated the crime will not be committed.
When we describe a pedophile or mass murderer as an animal or a beast because his/her behaviour doesn't fit with our concept of what constitutes a human being, we are in effect suggesting that his/her non-humanness is responsible for his/her having committed the said abhorrent act. And when the act is motivated by anything other than choice- in this case allegedly non-human characteristics- what can we/ society really do with that? If someone's behaviour is caused by an inherent bestiality, then should they be subjected to the laws designed to govern human behaviour? Would you incarcerate a dog for biting off a woman’s arm? Would that be right?
(For the record, I take the position that it would not. It’s not okay to judge an animal by human standards- not least because our standards may be rather low and animals are better than that- whether it’s shooting a tiger that started preying on villagers when forests began shrinking or calling for the death of a killer whale that shook its trainer to death.)
Is it not true that one can be held accountable for one’s actions only if one is seen to be making a choice?
Is the idea that those who commit acts we find repugnant are fundamentally different to us really more palatable than the idea that it is our choices that separate us from them?
It doesn’t please me in the slightest to believe that rapists, murderers, child molesters, wife beaters are inhuman, bestial, degenerates. I’d much rather believe that I have my own reasons for making the choices I make and acting the way I do, and that those reasons are not motivated by my mere belongingness to a certain species classification.
If I pick fleas off a stray dog or buy a starving child some food I’m as human as I would be if I chose not to do these things. Someone who kills a hundred people in cold blood is as human as someone who chooses not to commit such an act.
My actions don't make me human or inhuman.
They merely determine what kind of human being I am.
